Every now and then I see little arguments over Columbus Day. There have been calls to change it to a "Native Americans Day" and Cortez wants to change it to a Election Holiday.

Given that he never stepped foot in America and he was especially brutal to the natives he found, I don't really see a purpose to honor him. Wikipedia cites his importance as being the start of exploration of the New World, but it still strikes me as really odd to have a day honoring him.

I have seen some conservatives make fun of suggestions to change the day or eliminate it, but I never seen a reason given.

I've been listening to some Milton Friedman recently and I think he makes some very valid points. However I feel his discussion of the problems with Public Education overlook a rather clear paradox with it.

If we tell people that it is up to them to pay for their own child's education, there would be a large contingent of the population that would look for the cheapest option for themselves. Doesn't it limit one's personal freedom to say that they are obligated to send their child to any institution to be educated? If there is a lack of publicly funded schools, it seems to me that many would simply choose not the pay to send their children to any school at all.

Am I misinterpreting or misrepresenting the conservative/libertarian viewpoint that there should be we should increase private schooling and reduce or eliminate government involvement in education? If you believe that to be the case, is it acceptable to you that many children in the USA would then receive zero or minimal education?

I read about a statement that the Pope just made concerning the wealthy and the poor:

In his homily, Francis said “we Christians cannot stand with arms folded in indifference or with arms outstretched in helplessness” about those in need. He cited the “stifled cry” of the unborn, of starving children, “of young people more used to the explosion of bombs than happy shouts at the playground.”

He also drew attention to the plight of abandoned elderly, the friendless and “the cry of all those forced to flee their homes and native land for an uncertain future. It is the cry of entire peoples, deprived even of the great natural resources at their disposal.”

Francis said the poor were weeping “while the wealthy few feast on what, in justice, belongs to all. Injustice is the perverse root of poverty.”

“The cry of the poor daily becomes stronger but every day heard less,” he said. That cry is “drowned out by the din on the rich few, who grow ever fewer and more rich,” the pontiff said.

If possible, put aside whatever opinions that you happen to have about the pope, and put yourself into his mind. What do you think that he would actually have the world do to solve the issue of global poverty? Just have rich people send them more money? After I read his statement, I could not find anything where he clarifies what he really wants from us.

Also, if you acknowledge that world poverty is actually an issue, is there anything that you personally believe that could be done to address it?

"Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people — or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles." (EB)

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" (MW)

By that, I mean the Fcc requiring basic/premium cable channels, online streaming services, and movies in theaters to follow the same bleeping and blurring standards used by over the air broadcast television.

Should Hollywood, Netflix or Hbo be allowed to have the creative expression to show swearing and nudity, or should there be measures to protect the public good?

For example, perhaps many in my generation (Gen Z/Millenial) lean left because they see a society that offers them inadequate opportunity (and possibly in a way, hope) for them? For example, I was reading an online post about someone who was having a difficult time working a 60 hour schedule only to be berated by his father despite the fact his son and many people in his situation are struggling? Maybe the Great Recession never really left many including those in my generation?

What can be done to provide hope for so many who have lost it or never had it in the first place? Jobs for those willing to seek, opportunities for those willing to seize them?

Although economies may go on a boom and bust cycle, what can be done to ensure and institute long-term opportunities for our society? If conservatives want to truly provide a positive and uplifting message to counter the progressives in this country, why not take up the mantle of really support equal or equitable opportunities for all or at least doing what can be done to move towards such a goal?

I consider myself pretty conservative but im also a huge environmentalist I support protecting our environment, i support public lands, national parks and other conservation efforts but when I talk to other right wingers and tell them this they act like I'm a socialist who loves big government. The way I see it conservatism is about conserving our country and what's great about America and our environmental beauty is one of the greatest things about America and it breaks my heart seeing so many conservatives put profits and corporations interests before our environment. Like Goldwater said “I am a great believer in the free, competitive enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in clean and pollution-free environments."

And with that, various groups who have the money and resources to do so set out to create their own enclave, colony, whatever that is based on a specific socio-political ideology (in this case, conservative ones) would you leave to join them if their flavor of conservatism matched yours or at least well enough to be convincing?

Similar to single payer healthcare, but for firearms and related purchases.

Everyone pays a tax that goes to the firearm manufacturers/sellers, but the consumer doesn't have to pay at the point of sale when buying guns, ammo, and related firearm supplies.

The second amendment says that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", Do you believe that a lack of income counts as an infringement to the right?

A couple of prominent or recognizeable names such as David Brat (the man who primaried Cantor), Karen Handel and Scott Walker lost in 2018? Is there anyone from the Midterms that you are going to miss? Do you think they might engineer a comeback in 2020 or even 2022?

Also, do you think Trump who isn't exactly the most exemplary conservative caused principled conservatives to lose or were those candidates already in somewhat fragile and precarious positions such as being elected in what seem to be very competitive seats or other reasons such as not holding seats for very long which meant a lack of time to develop a record to run on or build an electoral base of support which weakened their incumbency?

How bad would it for Trump if the economy tanks on his watch. Will his base still support him? The Interest rate hikes from a little while ago appear to be a signal that bad things are to come. I often hear that the next downturn will be worse than the 2008 recession.

The world is undergoing an energy transition as we can all see. There are countless examples of innovation and common technologies that required government investment and subsidies to grow to where they are today. The potential for clean technologies to spur economic growth is clear. But, is government support needed or can we simply leave these to the market?

“When people get in line that have absolutely no right to vote and they go around in circles. Sometimes they go to their car, put on a different hat, put on a different shirt, come in and vote again. Nobody takes anything. It’s really a disgrace what’s going on.”

Let's consider Sweden, arguably the most leftist Western country(both socially and economically), and the biggest recipient of Muslim immigrants.

The Muslim immigrants in question are much more conservative then the average Swede, at least when it comes to cultural preferences and preferred social policies. On economics they might be more supportive of welfare spending, in so far as they tend to be poorer...

But their presence makes that same welfare state less affordable. Not only that, but their presence makes ethnic Swedes less supportive of welfare spending(people are generally more comfortable being taxed to benefit co-ethnics, which is why homogeneous countries tend to be more socialistic).

So, shouldn't conservatives support Muslim immigration, at least to the socially liberal and socialistic parts of the West? Even if it makes those countries somewhat poorer?

Or, to put it another way, which country do you prefer: Sweden(currently extremely SJW-y and socialistic) or Turkey(somewhat poorer, but much more socially conservative and capitalistic)? Isn't a Sweden that starts to resemble Turkey a win for conservatism?

Ask a Conservative: ask conservatives questions about conservative theory, values, policy and politics. For new conservatives, independents, moderates, (polite) liberals and others who want to understand, not argue as in Soviet /r/politics and GOPE /r/conservative.